CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----22770 22770 22770 22770 127 127 127 127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Ajay @ Aman State of Haryana Date of Date of Date of Date of DDDDecision: ecision: ecision: ecision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Section 482 Cr. P.C.) dated 16.12.2025 Judge, Hisar petitioner has been State, and non notice to his sureties were issued captioned as “ 19.04.2023, registered 34, 379-A, 454 of IPC 2. had been earlier granted the concession of 22770 22770 22770 22770----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----22770 22770 22770 22770----2026 2026 2026 2026 Ajay @ Aman versus Haryana ecision: ecision: ecision: ecision: April 24 April 24 April 24 April 24, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: April 24 April 24 April 24 April 24, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) Section 482 Cr. P.C.) seeking setting aside/ quashing of the 16.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judge, Hisar (for short ‘Sessions Court’), has been cancelled and his bail/ surety and non-bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner as also notice to his sureties were issued, in case captioned as “State vs. Dhanpat etc.” with regard to FIR No.274 dated 19.04.2023, registered for commission of offence punishable under Sections A, 454 of IPC, at Police Station City Hisar and District Hisar Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the rlier granted the concession of 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL , Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (earlier quashing of the impugned order ) passed by the learned Additional Sessions , whereby bail granted to the / surety bonds are forfeited to the been issued against the petitioner as also in case bearing SC No.558 of 2023 with regard to FIR No.274 dated for commission of offence punishable under Sections , at Police Station City Hisar and District Hisar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner rlier granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide .Petitioner ….Respondent the (earlier order Additional Sessions to the are forfeited to the been issued against the petitioner as also bearing SC No.558 of 2023 with regard to FIR No.274 dated for commission of offence punishable under Sections petitioner vide MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.24 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----22770 22770 22770 22770----2026 2026 2026 2026 2222 order dated 29.07.2025 and was regularly appearing before the trial Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that on 16.12.2025, the petitioner could not appear before the Court below due to noting down of wrong date. Consequently, bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and bonds stands forfeited to the State vide impugned order. Learned counsel submits that issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when absence of the petitioner was purely inadvertent, which was neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the trial Court as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for expeditious culmination of the trial. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the strength of advance service of copy of petition, Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State of Punjab. She opposes the petition in hand by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner has misused the concession of bail earlier extended to him by not appearing before the trial Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. 6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu Gudikanti Narasimhulu Gudikanti Narasimhulu Gudikanti Narasimhulu MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.24 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----22770 22770 22770 22770----2026 2026 2026 2026 3333 and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, SUPREME COURT 429, SUPREME COURT 429, SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under: ““““10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected. 11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible. 12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution.”””” 6.1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as under:- ““““Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, court, court, court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, court, court, court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.”””” 6.2. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under: MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.24 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----22770 22770 22770 22770----2026 2026 2026 2026 4444 ““““21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.” ” ” ” 7. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case; especially the factum of prime object of cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds being securing the presence of the accused, the petitioner-accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness shown by the petitioner-accused to appear before the trial Court on each and every date in accordance with law, the petitioner having submitted that he shall cooperate for an expeditious culmination of the trial & there being no tangible material brought forward to indicate likelihood of the petitioner to interfere with the prosecution evidence; this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed. 8. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: (i) The present petition is allowe allowe allowe allowedddd; (ii) The impugned order dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Sessions Court as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are set-aside, subject to the petitioner appearing before the trial/concerned Court on or before 07.05.2026 07.05.2026 07.05.2026 07.05.2026, & shall furnish an undertaking that the petitioner shall continue to appear before the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.24 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----22770 22770 22770 22770----2026 2026 2026 2026 5555 trial/concerned Court on each and every date of hearing. It is clarified that the trial/concerned Court shall be at liberty to impose such other condition(s) upon the petitioner, as deemed appropriate by it in the facts and circumstances of the case; (iii) The petitioner shall deposit costs of `20,000/- with the Sai Sai Sai Sai Aasra Paraplegic Rehab Centre in A/c Aasra Paraplegic Rehab Centre in A/c Aasra Paraplegic Rehab Centre in A/c Aasra Paraplegic Rehab Centre in A/c No.9612001641, Kotak Mahindra No.9612001641, Kotak Mahindra No.9612001641, Kotak Mahindra No.9612001641, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sector 27 Bank, Sector 27 Bank, Sector 27 Bank, Sector 27----D, Chandigarh, IFSC No.: KKBK0004201 D, Chandigarh, IFSC No.: KKBK0004201 D, Chandigarh, IFSC No.: KKBK0004201 D, Chandigarh, IFSC No.: KKBK0004201. It is clarified that payment of the aforesaid costs and production of receipt/proof thereof before the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In absence of deposit of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without any further reference to the Bench. (iv) Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE April 24 April 24 April 24 April 24, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.24 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment